Chattisgarh High Court
Malti Bai vs Sunildas on 10 July, 2025
1/4
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 404 of 2020
MALTI BAI versus SUNILDAS
Order on Board
10.07.2025 Ms. Renu Kochar, counsel for appellant.
Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for
respondent No.3.
Heard on I.A. No.1/2020, which is an application U/s.
5 of Limitation Act.
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
impugned award dated 14.06.2013, passed in Claim Case
No. 19 of 2012 only on 12.02.2020 i.e. after delay of 2341
days along with an application for seeking condonation of
delay.
Learned counsel for appellants submits that the
claimants are rustic villagers and having no knowledge
about the law of limitation, therefore, they could not able to
file this appeal within prescribed time. In the aforementioned
facts of the case, delay in filing of appeal may kindly be
condone. In support of her contention, she relied upon the
Digitally
signed by
BALRAM
BALRAM PRASAD
PRASAD DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.07.15
10:15:42
+0530
order passed by this Court in MAC No. 140 of 2015,
2/4decided on 08.04.2022.
Learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company
vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for
appellants and would submit that there is no proper
explanation of inordinate delay of 2341 days in filing this
appeal. He contended that delay can be condoned only
when sufficient cause is shown, which is lacking in this
case. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon
the order dated 20.10.2016 in MAC No.1599 of 2015 (J.S.
Shawhney Vs. Smt. Timbi Bhagat), which is a appeal filed
by owner of the vehicle. The order passed in MAC
No.794/2019, dated 06.12.2021 (Mansingh Vs. Balkaran &
Anr.) and decision in case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died)
L.Rs.& Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), reported
in (2024) 4 SCR 241 and the order passed in MAC No.2289
of 2024 (Branch Manager Vs. Smt. Kaushaliya & Ors.)
decided on 22.01.2025.
The order passed in MAC No. 2289 of 201 is an order
passed in appeal filed by the Insurance Company. In the
case of Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was dealing with special leave petition filed against
the order arising out of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In
that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered
that out of 16 claimants, 15 accepted the order passed by
the reference Court and it is the legal representative of
deceased claimant No.11 has filed this appeal. In the case
J.S. Shawhney, appellant/owner has filed with delay of 794
days.
3/4
The Hon’ble Court considering the facts of those case
has dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of
Sudama & Ors. Vs. Lalsingh & Others, reported in 2017
ACJ 315 has observed thus :-
“13. True it is that in filing appeal there is a delay
of near about four years, but it is a settled
proposition of law that in the Indian culture it is
not expected from uneducated villagers or
agriculturists or labour class that they are
acquainted with the legal procedure, specifically
the provision of limitation, to file appeal, and, in
such premises, their application for condonation
of delay could not be thrown away saying that the
same has been filed after a long delay. In the
aforesaid circumstance, this appeal could not be
dismissed only on account of filing it at belated
stage. Such aspect was considered by the Apex
Court long before while considering the matter of
substitution of legal representatives on record at
very belated stage, i.e., near about six years in
the matter of Ram Sumiran v. D.D.C., 1985 ACJ
569 (SC) and the application was allowed.
14. Apart from the aforesaid, I am of the
considered view that provision of claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted keeping in
view social welfare of the society at large and
under section 173 of the aforesaid Act provision
for condoning the delay in filing the appeal has
also been provided. If such law is enacted for
welfare of the society at large, then merely on
account of delay in filing the appeal, the appeal of
a person like the appellants, out of them some
were minors, could not be thrown away by
dismissing the application under section 5 of the
4/4
From perusal of of contents of the award, which is
under challenged appears that appellants/claimants have
lost their bread winner and have filed claim application
seeking compensation against the death of husband of
appellant No.1 and father of appellants No.2 and 3. The
provision under which the appeal is filed is benevolent piece
of legislation and therefore, I am inclined to condone the
delay of 2341 days in filing of this appeal.
Appeal is admitted for hearing.
Issue notice to respondents.
Mr. Agrawal accepts notice on behalf of respondent
No.3, hence, process fee is not required to be paid for
respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for appellants is directed to supply
one extra copy of memo of appeal along with impugned
award to the counsel for respondent No.3.
On payment of process fee, issue notice to
respondents No.1 and 2 as per rules making it returnable
within three weeks.
List this case after three weeks.
Sd/-
Balram (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge